Posted by: crudbasher | August 30, 2010

A Story From the Future of Higher Education?

I love stories like this.  Dave Morgan in an interview with Knoxville New Sentinel clearly lays out the case of why traditional media is having so much trouble and why online news sources are doing so well.

This is one of those cases where you can see clear parallels between the media industry and Higher Education.  In fact you can do a simple word replacement and get a totally different story.

In this article try replacing the word media with Universities, and customers with students.

For example:

  • Most traditional mainstream media companies drank their own Kool-Aid and truly believed that their market positions and margins were driven by their content.
  • They weren’t. They were built and held in place by distribution monopolies. They never really had to listen to or care about what their users and advertisers thought. So, as the Internet undermined their distribution networks and exclusive access to consumers, these companies floundered.

This becomes:

  • Most traditional mainstream universities drank their own Kool-Aid and truly believed that their market positions and margins were driven by their content.
  • They weren’t. They were built and held in place by distribution monopolies. They never really had to listen to or care about what their students thought. So, as the Internet undermined their distribution networks and exclusive access to consumers, these universities floundered.

Is this a story from the future?  For a lot of schools, yes.  The big question in my mind is how far in the future is this story from?  My guess is 5-8 years.

  • Try replacing media with universities

    tags: education profound media

    • Dave Morgan is a serial entrepreneur whose latest company, SimulMedia (simulmedia.com), is a data-driven marketing firm whose aim is “Solving TV’s discovery problem.” An early Internet pioneer, Morgan founded Real Media Inc., one of the first ad-serving and online ad network companies and a predecessor to 24/7 Real Media, which was later sold to WPP for $649 million.
    • What are the key advantages that give these upstarts an advantage over traditional media as they make their way today in the same digital spaces?
    • First and foremost, most of the digital media startups have a much better idea where they are going, who they are serving and what their advantages are than their traditional forebearers.
    • Most traditional media companies are still focused on doing what they always did, as they and their bosses were taught to do it, and are becoming increasingly perplexed as to why it doesn’t work anymore.
    • Open, digital networks permit them to reach and serve more people more often with more robust content than was ever possible before, and do it at one-thousandth of the cost per person served.
    • Most of the traditional media companies that we know today are, or were, monopolies. They crushed their competitors on the basis of dominant exclusive distribution and they forced their advertisers and consumers to pay whatever fees they deemed appropriate.
    • Most traditional mainstream media companies drank their own Kool-Aid and truly believed that their market positions and margins were driven by their content.
    • They weren’t. They were built and held in place by distribution monopolies. They never really had to listen to or care about what their users and advertisers thought. So, as the Internet undermined their distribution networks and exclusive access to consumers, these companies floundered.
    • These companies thought that they were great at content creation, but they weren’t. The content that they had been producing was just good enough to keep their monopolies growing and in place.
    • It just wasn’t good enough – or appropriate – for a real-time, interactive and connected new media world where people had lots of content too choose from, and where they had great tools like search to find and compare different sources.
    • I believe that social Web services like Facebook, Zynga, Twitter and Foursquare are going to have a fundamental impact on media and communication. All of them have very low cost structures relative to their consumer reach and engagement. All involve their users in very deep and passionate ways. All have built their services as platforms for others to build more focused or specialty services on top of. All are better platforms for content discovery, distribution, creation and commercialization than anything we have ever seen before.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I suspect that this rings true for most content providers who are still clinging to the old model of content is king. Obviously there is a major shift happening here. When you can get content anywhere and you can get it on demand, the model has to shift to remain viable. This is true for schools and for traditional media. I would guess it is 2-4 years for media and 3-5 for schools/universities.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: